Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36373988›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2022

Skin care interventions in infants for preventing eczema and food allergy.

Maeve M Kelleher, Rachel Phillips, Sara J Brown, Suzie Cro, Victoria Cornelius, Karin C Lødrup Carlsen, Håvard O Skjerven, Eva M Rehbinder, Adrian J Lowe, Eishika Dissanayake and 17 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
16.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 67 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Topical Anti-Inflammatory Treatments for Eczema: A Cochrane Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Clinical and experimental allergy : journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Clinical Profile of Elderly Atopic Dermatitis in China.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Novel approaches to prevent or cure allergic diseases.Current opinion in immunology · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Applications of bioactive peptides in cosmeceuticals: a review.Journal of Zhejiang University. Science. B · 2025
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Feast for thought: A comprehensive review of food allergy 2021-2023.The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology · 2024
    Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

27 authors at 17 institutions in 6 countries.

Maeve M KelleherNational Heart & Lung Institute, Section of Inflammation and Repair, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Rachel PhillipsImperial Clinical Trials Unit, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Sara J BrownCentre for Genomic and Experimental Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Suzie CroImperial Clinical Trials Unit, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Victoria CorneliusImperial Clinical Trials Unit, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Karin C Lødrup CarlsenDivision of Paediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Håvard O SkjervenDivision of Paediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Eva M RehbinderFaculty of Medicine, Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Adrian J LoweAllergy and Lung Health Unit, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Eishika DissanayakeDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Naoki ShimojoCenter for Preventive Medical Sciences, Chiba University, Chiba, Japan.
Kaori YonezawaDepartment of Midwifery and Women's Health, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Yukihiro OhyaAllergy Center, National Center for Child Health and Development, Tokyo, Japan.
Kiwako Yamamoto-HanadaAllergy Center, National Center for Child Health and Development, Tokyo, Japan.
Kumiko MoritaDepartment of Pediatrics, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Emma AxonCentre of Evidence Based Dermatology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Michael CorkSheffield Dermatology Research, Department of Infection, Immunity & Cardiovascular Disease, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Alison CookeDivision of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Eleanor Van VogtImperial Clinical Trials Unit, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Jochen SchmittCenter for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Faculty of Medicine Carl Gustav Carus, Technischen Universität (TU) Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Stephan WeidingerDepartment of Dermatology and Allergy, University Hospital Scheswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany.
Danielle McClanahanDepartment of Dermatology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Eric SimpsonDepartment of Dermatology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Lelia DuleyNottingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Lisa M AskieNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia.
Hywel C WilliamsCentre of Evidence Based Dermatology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Robert J BoyleNational Heart & Lung Institute, Section of Inflammation and Repair, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Imperial College London · GBUniversity of Nottingham · GBNational Center For Child Health and Development · JPOregon Health & Science University · USUniversity of Oslo · NOChiba University · JPCooperative Trials Group for Neuro-Oncology · AUEdinburgh Cancer Research · GBKeio University · JPOslo University Hospital · NOThe University of Tokyo · JPTU Dresden · DEUniversity of Lübeck · DEUniversity of Manchester · GBUniversity of Melbourne · AUUniversity of Sheffield · GBUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEczema and food allergy are common health conditions that usually begin in early childhood and often occur in the same people. They can be associated with an impaired skin barrier in early infancy. It is unclear whether trying to prevent or reverse an impaired skin barrier soon after birth is effective for preventing eczema or food allergy.

objectivesPrimary objective To assess the effects of skin care interventions such as emollients for primary prevention of eczema and food allergy in infants. Secondary objective To identify features of study populations such as age, hereditary risk, and adherence to interventions that are associated with the greatest treatment benefit or harm for both eczema and food allergy. SEARCH

methodsWe performed an updated search of the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase in September 2021. We searched two trials registers in July 2021. We checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews, and scanned conference proceedings to identify further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs).  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs of skin care interventions that could potentially enhance skin barrier function, reduce dryness, or reduce subclinical inflammation in healthy term (> 37 weeks) infants (≤ 12 months) without pre-existing eczema, food allergy, or other skin condition. Eligible comparisons were standard care in the locality or no treatment. Types of skin care interventions could include moisturisers/emollients; bathing products; advice regarding reducing soap exposure and bathing frequency; and use of water softeners. No minimum follow-up was required. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: This is a prospective individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures, and primary analyses used the IPD dataset. Primary outcomes were cumulative incidence of eczema and cumulative incidence of immunoglobulin (Ig)E-mediated food allergy by one to three years, both measured at the closest available time point to two years. Secondary outcomes included adverse events during the intervention period; eczema severity (clinician-assessed); parent report of eczema severity; time to onset of eczema; parent report of immediate food allergy; and allergic sensitisation to food or inhalant allergen. MAIN

resultsWe identified 33 RCTs comprising 25,827 participants. Of these, 17 studies randomising 5823 participants reported information on one or more outcomes specified in this review.  We included 11 studies, randomising 5217 participants, in one or more meta-analyses (range 2 to 9 studies per individual meta-analysis), with 10 of these studies providing IPD; the remaining 6 studies were included in the narrative results only.   Most studies were conducted at children's hospitals. Twenty-five studies, including all those contributing data to meta-analyses, randomised newborns up to age three weeks to receive a skin care intervention or standard infant skin care. Eight of the 11 studies contributing to meta-analyses recruited infants at high risk of developing eczema or food allergy, although the definition of high risk varied between studies. Durations of intervention and follow-up ranged from 24 hours to three years. All interventions were compared against no skin care intervention or local standard care. Of the 17 studies that reported information on our prespecified outcomes, 13 assessed emollients. We assessed most of the evidence in the review as low certainty and had some concerns about risk of bias. A rating of some concerns was most often due to lack of blinding of outcome assessors or significant missing data, which could have impacted outcome measurement but was judged unlikely to have done so. We assessed the evidence for the primary food allergy outcome as high risk of bias due to the inclusion of only one trial, where findings varied based on different assumptions about missing data. Skin care interventions during infancy probably do not change the risk of eczema by one to three years of age (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.31; risk difference 5 more cases per 1000 infants, 95% CI 28 less to 47 more; moderate-certainty evidence; 3075 participants, 7 trials) or time to onset of eczema (hazard ratio 0.86, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.14; moderate-certainty evidence; 3349 participants, 9 trials). Skin care interventions during infancy may increase the risk of IgE-mediated food allergy by one to three years of age (RR 2.53, 95% CI 0.99 to 6.49; low-certainty evidence; 976 participants, 1 trial) but may not change risk of allergic sensitisation to a food allergen by age one to three years (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.71; low-certainty evidence; 1794 participants, 3 trials). Skin care interventions during infancy may slightly increase risk of parent report of immediate reaction to a common food allergen at two years (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.61; low-certainty evidence; 1171 participants, 1 trial); however, this was only seen for cow's milk, and may be unreliable due to over-reporting of milk allergy in infants. Skin care interventions during infancy probably increase risk of skin infection over the intervention period (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.75; risk difference 17 more cases per 1000 infants, 95% CI one more to 38 more; moderate-certainty evidence; 2728 participants, 6 trials) and may increase the risk of infant slippage over the intervention period (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.99; low-certainty evidence; 2538 participants, 4 trials) and stinging/allergic reactions to moisturisers (RR 2.24, 95% 0.67 to 7.43; low-certainty evidence; 343 participants, 4 trials), although CIs for slippages and stinging/allergic reactions were wide and include the possibility of no effect or reduced risk. Preplanned subgroup analyses showed that the effects of interventions were not influenced by age, duration of intervention, hereditary risk, filaggrin (FLG) mutation, chromosome 11 intergenic variant rs2212434, or classification of intervention type for risk of developing eczema. We could not evaluate these effects on risk of food allergy. Evidence was insufficient to show whether adherence to interventions influenced the relationship between skin care interventions and eczema or food allergy development. AUTHORS'

conclusionsBased on low- to moderate-certainty evidence, skin care interventions such as emollients during the first year of life in healthy infants are probably not effective for preventing eczema; may increase risk of food allergy; and probably increase risk of skin infection. Further study is needed to understand whether different approaches to infant skin care might prevent eczema or food allergy.

Indexed as

EczemaFood HypersensitivityMilk HypersensitivityAllergensAnimalsCattleEmollientsFemaleAllergensEmollients

Identifiers

PMID36373988
PMCPMC9661877
OpenAlexW4308999937

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.